Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Collin said:

I think the city should explore the possibility of light rail in heavily trafficked corridors in the outer boroughs that aren't served by subway.  They can achieve far higher capacity and speed compared to an SBS route, but can be built for a lot cheaper than a subway, even if partially underground.  

The city is already trying that with the BQX, even thought that's a streetcar. 

I wasn't going to share this so early, but 2 Streetcar/LRT Lines could work in NY in my opinion. One would run along Main Street and follow the Q44, and the other would be the BQX Truncated from Astoria to Williamsburg. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ofAQaSBt3v6LocvLBLVSP5xzui0_OYP3&usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collin said:

I'm not sure a Jewel Ave line, or further branching off QB would be a good idea.  It just reduces the number of trains that can go to the existing terminals and increases the number of merges.  I think the city should explore the possibility of light rail in heavily trafficked corridors in the outer boroughs that aren't served by subway.  They can achieve far higher capacity and speed compared to an SBS route, but can be built for a lot cheaper than a subway, even if partially underground.  

For this to ever happen, QB would have to be very organized, which would probably mean no Broadway Service, so possible the (M) or whatever's running local that's not the (E) or (F) trains. Perhaps a (K) train can run Jewel Av. and have an (E) train run to Jamaica while the (M) that runs express runs to Jamaica - 179 or Jamaica Center. depending on capacity at those stations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Collin said:

I'm not sure a Jewel Ave line, or further branching off QB would be a good idea.  It just reduces the number of trains that can go to the existing terminals and increases the number of merges.  I think the city should explore the possibility of light rail in heavily trafficked corridors in the outer boroughs that aren't served by subway.  They can achieve far higher capacity and speed compared to an SBS route, but can be built for a lot cheaper than a subway, even if partially underground.  

Who said anything about branching away from existing terminals or merging?

Today local trains terminate at Forest Hills, before heading into Jamaica Yard. You could extend local trains past Jamaica Yard and get to Jewel/73rd that way. In fact, a train line that did exactly that was built for the World's Fair in the '30s, although it continued north rather than turning east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Collin said:

I think the (7) should have infill stations added at 10th Avenue as was originally planned, and at 2nd Avenue as part of Phase 3.  That would eliminate the need build an extremely long underground passage to Grand Central that customers won't like anyways.  The proposed transfer would be longer than going between Times Square and Port Authority Bus Terminal.  This would also allow the (7) to function better as a crosstown line.

Doesn’t that track get deeper than 85 ft after leaving Grand Central for Queens? And isn’t it physically in the Steinway Tunnel once it gets to 3rd Av?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Doesn’t that track get deeper than 85 ft after leaving Grand Central for Queens? And isn’t it physically in the Steinway Tunnel once it gets to 3rd Av?

The dumbest thing about that is that the 7 train already has an exit onto Third. You really couldn't build another station within reasonable distance of Third until you get to First.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 8:21 PM, bobtehpanda said:

On the contrary, I don't think it works very well at all. The (R) is almost always delayed, the merges at 36th and 75th can cause issues as well. The important thing about evicting (R) service, is that it allows you to dedicate 100% of 60th St to Astoria (either reconfigured, or built with an alternate extension path like LGA that could provide a second outlet to terminate trains) so the (R) definitely needs to go.

I am of mixed opinion about the 53rd/63rd deinterlining with QBL. In my opinion, terminating local trains at Forest Hills is important because most eastern and SE Queens bus riders are also slogging it on the bus after, so slowing them down further is going to inconvenience many. And I don't really see why one couldn't run a local and an express each from both 53rd and 63rd; it'd certainly reduce transferring volumes at Roosevelt to do so. 

Again, having so many trains merge at 36th Street is a recipe for disaster. By having all expresses to 63rd and all locals to 53rd you will significantly increase capacity by balancing ridership loads. Riders who want the express get the less attractive 63rd Street corridor, while those who want the local get the more attractive 53rd Street corridor.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 2:49 AM, bobtehpanda said:

WTC is a two track platform with no tail tracks. It currently struggles with the (E) but that's partially because of the nasty Canal St merge. You'd have to get the (C) out of the way to even get close to 18.

To put this in perspective, New South Ferry is also a two-track station with no tail tracks, and IIRC it was stated to have a capacity of 24TPH.

Just swap the (C) and the (D), with the (D) running local via CPW, and the (C) running express via CPW and 8th Avenue and you get rid of the merges at (2x) Canal Street, 50th Street, and (2x) 59th Street. Problem solved. The (E) should be able to handle 8th Avenue local by itself, as frequency would increase on the express with the combined (A)(C). This is one of the easiest deinterlining options, along with a (D)(Q) swap in Brooklyn, and an (F)(M) swap for 53rd Street/63rd Street.

 

On 3/29/2020 at 3:04 AM, bobtehpanda said:

It's a nonstarter because the only transfer station is Roosevelt. Even today Roosevelt is already at peak standing capacity; you can't increase transfer volumes during the rush without having to start resorting to London Underground-style closing of exits and putting people in pens. Roosevelt's layout is particularly bad for wrong-direction platform changes.

The (R) definitely needs to go. But honestly, if 8th Av local and expresses are separated, the interlining would be between two track pairs, and that is honestly not the end of the world.

While I would absolutely hate it considering I would lose my 50 MPH express run, converting Woodhaven Boulevard to an express station is the only real solution to reduce dwells at Roosevelt Avenue, which functions as the westernmost transfer point between express and local trains, as an important transfer to the (7), and as an important bus connection.

 

13 hours ago, Collin said:

I think the (7) should have infill stations added at 10th Avenue as was originally planned, and at 2nd Avenue as part of Phase 3.  That would eliminate the need build an extremely long underground passage to Grand Central that customers won't like anyways.  The proposed transfer would be longer than going between Times Square and Port Authority Bus Terminal.  This would also allow the (7) to function better as a crosstown line.

I agree with 10th Avenue. You do realize that there is an exit to 3rd Avenue at the Grand Central stop on the (7)? Also, the tunnel goes into a steep downgrade past Third Avenue, so you cannot build a station there.

steinway04.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Collin said:

I'm not sure a Jewel Ave line, or further branching off QB would be a good idea.  It just reduces the number of trains that can go to the existing terminals and increases the number of merges.  I think the city should explore the possibility of light rail in heavily trafficked corridors in the outer boroughs that aren't served by subway.  They can achieve far higher capacity and speed compared to an SBS route, but can be built for a lot cheaper than a subway, even if partially underground.  

See the E Queens Light Rail above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

You do realize that there is an exit to 3rd Avenue at the Grand Central stop on the (7)? Also, the tunnel goes into a steep downgrade past Third Avenue, so you cannot build a station there.

That’s what I thought - that descent technically begins the Steinway Tunnel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I'm still under the notion that Phase 3 of the Second Avenue subway should not be built, Or else we're stuck with this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YOMBdOm6Y_U4S047evR--fEtzjeiWte6

That's why I think build phase 3 down 3rd av from 63rd st to 42nd st, and then have it go over to 2nd av so it can take over the (B)(D) going over the Manhattan Bridge. That way you avoid the interlining, but more importantly, the transfers are better so the SAS can actually do its job and be an adequate alternative to the (4)(5)(6). It will still be less of a walk for riders to the east, and you would still need to build another tunnel if you were de-interlining anyway. The 3rd to 2nd av move is a little awkward, but I'm sure doable and preferable to building it on 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I'm still under the notion that Phase 3 of the Second Avenue subway should not be built, Or else we're stuck with this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YOMBdOm6Y_U4S047evR--fEtzjeiWte6

 

Lex below 42 is not even considered at capacity.

The only reason we are putting it on the map is because ESA does not go Downtown, so all those new riders are going to shove on the one downtown line from Grand Central. It would be better to do that (and build the tunnel onwards to Atlantic so you don't have to build more expensive terminal caverns)

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Just swap the (C) and the (D), with the (D) running local via CPW, and the (C) running express via CPW and 8th Avenue and you get rid of the merges at (2x) Canal Street, 50th Street, and (2x) 59th Street. Problem solved. The (E) should be able to handle 8th Avenue local by itself, as frequency would increase on the express with the combined (A)(C). This is one of the easiest deinterlining options, along with a (D)(Q) swap in Brooklyn, and an (F)(M) swap for 53rd Street/63rd Street.

While I would absolutely hate it considering I would lose my 50 MPH express run, converting Woodhaven Boulevard to an express station is the only real solution to reduce dwells at Roosevelt Avenue, which functions as the westernmost transfer point between express and local trains, as an important transfer to the (7), and as an important bus connection.

I think a (K) QBL local would work fine. When the (V) was introduced, crowding on the (F) reduced significantly even though the frequency split went from 18 (F) / 12 (E) to 15/15. The (E) gets absolutely slammed because it is the only 8th Av connection still, but a (K) would reduce the need for that significantly.

I agree that Woodhaven should eventually be built anyways. But my point about backtracking being an extremely undesirable and unrealistic practice for commuters to tolerate stands. There is no place in the system where we ask riders to backtrack like that and then make a wrong-direction transfer involving two level changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The only reason we are putting it on the map is because ESA does not go Downtown, so all those new riders are going to shove on the one downtown line from Grand Central. It would be better to do that (and build the tunnel onwards to Atlantic so you don't have to build more expensive terminal caverns)

That brings me to ask the question:

Aside from costs, why did the (MTA) never consider the idea of connecting ESA with Atlantic Terminal? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The (E) gets absolutely slammed because it is the only 8th Av connection still, but a (K) would reduce the need for that significantly.

The (K) would be the local train right? would we still run the (M) train local, because then we're packing the 53 St Tunnel. If we were to run both (E) and (K) trains local (and (M) express). , it would be the same exact route just short turned at Forest Hills. Also, wouldn't it be hard to run the (M) express and end it at Forest Hills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

The (K) would be the local train right? would we still run the (M) train local, because then we're packing the 53 St Tunnel. If we were to run both (E) and (K) trains local (and (M) express). , it would be the same exact route just short turned at Forest Hills. Also, wouldn't it be hard to run the (M) express and end it at Forest Hills?

(M) to 63rd. (K) replaces the (R)

So QBL looks like

(M) 6th av QBL local

(F) 6th av QBL express

(E) 8th Av QBL express

(K) 8th Av local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That brings me to ask the question:

Aside from costs, why did the (MTA) never consider the idea of connecting ESA with Atlantic Terminal? 

well, costs is the big one. Of course, ESA kinda blew up in their faces, but hindsight is 2020.

also, pun intended, tunnel vision. ESA more or less dates back to 1968, the founding of the MTA. The MTA has not, in the 21st century, proposed a new subway extension by itself that wasn't in an older plan. Everything "new" (7) line extension, Red Hook (9) , (7) to Secaucus, (4) down Utica, RBB, has been pushed by either the state or the city in some capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

(M) to 63rd. (K) replaces the (R)

So QBL looks like

(M) 6th av QBL local

(F) 6th av QBL express

(E) 8th Av QBL express

(K) 8th Av local

My only real problem with this is the (M) train on 63 St merging at 36 St. That's why I think 8th Av should run local and 6th Av run express. It's the only real simple way to do this. We don't really have to keep Forest Hills as a terminal anymore, we can have 2 terminals at the Jamaica Stations. or even switch (E) and (F) terminals, to avoid another nasty merge at Kew Gardens. the (M) train can run to JC and terminate there along with the (F).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have the Orange Line run entirely along Union Turnpike, down to Metropolitan Avenue, ending where the (M) terminates.   Instead, the purple line should go down Jewel Avenue to Forest Hills while the Black Line stays going to Jamaica.  You could also do away with the green line and instead have the black or purple line through run to the same territory.  All in all good ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Collin said:

I would have the Orange Line run entirely along Union Turnpike, down to Metropolitan Avenue, ending where the (M) terminates.   Instead, the purple line should go down Jewel Avenue to Forest Hills while the Black Line stays going to Jamaica.  You could also do away with the green line and instead have the black or purple line through run to the same territory.  All in all good ideas.

(V)But, Union Tpke is a block away from 73 Av, which is less busy, which means less delays. Also, Forest Hills has WAY more ridership than Middle Village

(Y): no, people just change at Jewel Av for the (V)

A Whitestone-Rosedale line would be too long and unnecessary, as most SE Queens Residents are going to Jamaica. The few that aren’t can just transfer from the (K) the (X) or (Y) at Jamaica.

Thoughts on the (H)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Here's my revised East Queens Light Rail:

5 lines:

(X)(Y)(H)(V)(K)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j9orLSQvatWLmff-bWbUMxZMxLJHlW1H&usp=sharing

Fleet:

Stadler Desirio DMU

 

Thoughts @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Collin @Theli11

Are you doing streetcars - cars sharing lanes with the train in both directions, or LRT - tracks on street but segregated from traffic lanes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

My only real problem with this is the (M) train on 63 St merging at 36 St. That's why I think 8th Av should run local and 6th Av run express. It's the only real simple way to do this. We don't really have to keep Forest Hills as a terminal anymore, we can have 2 terminals at the Jamaica Stations. or even switch (E) and (F) terminals, to avoid another nasty merge at Kew Gardens. the (M) train can run to JC and terminate there along with the (F).

The local running past Forest Hills is a non-starter; that was already tried in the '90s and was massively unpopular because of how slow it was. All those riders ended up changing for express trains anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The local running past Forest Hills is a non-starter; that was already tried in the '90s and was massively unpopular because of how slow it was. All those riders ended up changing for express trains anyways.

More riders benefitted from the change than were hurt by it, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Also, if it gets rid of the Forest Hills conga line, it would help even more people.

Edited by Union Tpke
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Are you doing streetcars - cars sharing lanes with the train in both directions, or LRT - tracks on street but segregated from traffic lanes?

Mostly streetcars, except when on streets with bus lanes, where the bus lane becomes a streetcar/bus lane

Thoughts on the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.